New CA law requires surrendering of guns b/c of protective order

J

Jericho9mm

New member
one more reason to move out of California, i am not disputing that you must surrender all your guns when a restraining order is taken out against you but that it passed in the CA senate 37-0! is there no one in California even trying to help out gun owners?

here is the article
 
“This is an important step to increase safety in domestic violence cases,” said Senator Kehoe. “Unfortunately, in some cases, the issuance of a protective order is followed by an assault or even murder. In certain circumstances, it is important to remove the guns as quickly as possible after a protective order has been served.”
Click to expand...
Trying to prevent harm in a domestic violence situation by issuing a protective order is like trying to plug a sieve with water. If someone is bent on doing harm to someone else, paper won't stop him, forfeiture of guns won't stop him, and forfeiture of kitchen knives won't stop him either. The intended victim can be safe only by successfully hiding from the attacker or by holing up somewhere with sufficient physical security. Depending on who the abuser is, hiding may be difficult, and "sufficient physical security" may mean a bunker with armed guards.

But no... Rather than face the intractable nature of violent crime, legislatures do what they do best, pass more laws under the assumption that bad people will stop being bad people out of respect for the law.
 
Yes, we all feel bad for the estranged, wife beating husbands who now have to feel helpless.
Click to expand...
...you said

i am not disputing that you must surrender all your guns when a restraining order is taken out against you
Click to expand...

was what i originally said, my point was they are legislating another facet to taking peoples guns away. and if you had looked at the article then you would have seen this...

Senator Christine Kehoe’s (D-San Diego) legislation to provide additional protection for people seeking protective orders from the court in non-violent domestic situations passed the Senate this week by a vote of 37 to 0.
Click to expand...

they dont even have to be a wife beater just have a restraining order against them in a "domestic situation"...
 
Yes, we all feel bad for the estranged, wife beating husbands who now have to feel he

Folks, everything is not as simple as taking guns away from violent domestic partners. This issue is really worth reading into, and understanding the implications of.

Protective order is something that is extremelly easy to subject a person to without much evidence and without a trial. I personally know a completely harmless and soft-spoken guy turning out on the receiving end of protective order, just because someone didn't like him. Before you ask - yes, I know all the glorious details of the affair that got him into this to confidently claim that he never laid a hand on that woman who didn't like him. It's almost like a claim to credit bureau: noone has to prove anything, it's almost a matter of good faith - except that faith is not always good.

In short, this statue opens a door to vindictive fraudulent complaints against gun owners just as a way to get them. Ugly. Very ugly.

It appears to me that California finds all loopholes to disarm it's populace. This is just another way to disarm people - some guilty, some not - without fair trial.
 
I recently escaped from the PRK, where I knew a young couple who divorced in 2005. Neither of them had ever hit each other, or anyone else that I know of, in the two years I'd known them. However, they are fighting over the custody of their son, so they have taken out restraining orders against each other. When they exchange custody of their son, who is 7, neither parent can go up to the door of the other's home. They either need a third party with them to escort the child to the car, or the child must walk 100 yards to the car.

Both of the parents are not allowed to have firearms at present because of the restraining orders, and yet neither of them has ever physically hurt or threatened each other or anyone else that I know of.

In the PRK, getting a restraining order is not that hard and is becoming SOP for any pending divorce. Oddly enough, if you have a restraining order against someone, good luck getting the police to enforce it in any time under 30 minutes. My wife had a restraining order against her violent ex-husband--he put her in the hospital twice--but the first time she called when he showed up at our door while I was away on business, the cops showed up 30 minutes later. Which was about 10 minutes after her ex had stopped beating on the front door. In a second, similar situation, the cops showed up almost an hour later. Fortunately, we had a big German Shepherd by that time.

And people still ask me why we moved out of the state. :rolleyes:
 
Yes, we all feel bad for the estranged, wife beating husbands who now have to feel helpless.
Click to expand...
So patently simplistic and out of touch with reality as to be beneath you, 1Bad. The sponsoring Senator clearly states this is targeted at "non-violent domestic situations"

Protective Orders are a matter of course, requested by many attorneys in any prelim divorce proceeding. And they're granted as a matter of course.

But now watch what happens. Think there's a single divorce lawyer in the PRK that's gonna hazard a lawsuit from a dead client's family because he failed to obtain a Protective Order against a spouse who later shot his/her client? Nope. Protective Order requests and follow up confiscations will become the rule, rather than the exception. And many of those caught up in the confiscations will be the very victims most in need of protection.

And one more question:
What group has an inordinately high rate of divorce; is known to unanimously own guns; and is most likely to have a previous claim against them for illegal use of force against a third party? You guessed it.....it's the Cops. Are you in favor of your colleagues being disarmed, discharged and/or assigned to desk jobs as the result of routine "protective orders" in non-violent domestic situations? Or do you consider all of them to be "estranged, wife beating husbands"?

Rich
 
Protective Orders are a matter of course, requested by many attorneys in any prelim divorce proceeding. And they're granted as a matter of course.

But now watch what happens. Think there's a single divorce lawyer in the PRK that's gonna hazard a lawsuit from a dead client's family because he failed to obtain a Protective Order against a spouse who later shot his/her client? Nope. Protective Order requests and follow up confiscations will become the rule, rather than the exception. And many of those caught up in the confiscations will be the very victims most in need of protection.
Click to expand...
Double +1! That is EXACTLY the situation.
 
this situation happens a ton in Divorce cases, not that the woman needs protection but it come out as part of the process. If anything it empowers women that much more over men when they decide to part becasue not only can she legally get half (which she probably deserves) but she can get him where it really hurts by having his guns confiscated.
 
I am all for the global war on domestic violence and I think that orders of protection can be effective tools in cases of legitimate violence. However, all too often it goes something like this:


Someone calls the police and says that their whatever made a call to them and threatened them, or just called them poopy pants and it upset them. NY State DV law states that Aggravated Harassment is a mandatory arrest. Victim states they want an order of protection because they are scared. The suspect is arrested for the misdemeanor of Aggravated Harassment with absolutley no evidence other than the statement of the victim. No pre-arraignment bail can be set on a DV offense so the suspect must sit in lockup until arraigned. If the arrest is after 4:00pm on a Friday the arraignment might not be until the following monday morning. At arraignment the judge issues the OP no questions asked. The suspect has been arrested, thrown in a jail cell with no hope for bail, has an OP issued against him and has his handguns confiscated. If he lives with the victim he is effectively evicted from his home because it is up to him to not have any contact with the victim. My wife, your wife, anyones wife/girlfriend could decide one day that they don't really like you anymore and all they have to do is make an accusation with no evidence and you are done. Find a new place to live bozo. Work security and need a weapon to work? Too bad, that is gone too. Nice payback for all your transgressions real and imagined. It happens everyday. Orders of protection are supposed to be a shield but are way too often used as a sword. I am personally sick of the nonsense but it is getting worse.

In what states are they issuing orders with divorce proceedings? I can't believe NY has not followed yet:barf:
 
That realy blows!

My buddys dad is a divorce attorney, and he tells us that some attorneys in his field just have a semi prepared package where the restraining order is just part of said package deal$$$. When the person comes in looking to get a divorce, they just fill out a few forms and then file them with the court and that's it! A few weeks later the other party gets served with a restraining order, along with the other papers filed.

I guess we can be gratefull to some attorneys out there too.
 
samoand: you have that right.

In Florida, the statutes make it a crime (I think a misdemeanor) to possess firearms or ammunition upon issuance of a final restraining order. The statute SPECIFICALLY says FINAL.

That seems fair to me. Having a final order issued against you means you either have had your hearing or have failed to show up for it, so you've had your chance to show cause why you should not be disarmed.

However...

Some, maybe all, courts here have decided to put, on the face of both the TRO and the final order, that same command.

I had to get a RO against somebody. I was threatened, among other things, that if I followed through, that person would file one against me just to take my gun away. That threat was not carried out. But it could easily have been.

So, let's say you got somebody seriously threatening you and you are truly trying to take law enforcement's advice by not bothering them AT ALL EVER, and filing for a restraining order. You have your gun and that order to protect yourself.

That person gets mad and files against YOU, knowing you'll lose your gun without ANY process.

That's wrong.

I won't argue about the firearms restrictions AFTER the hearing. But, in the real world, somebody legitimately needing a TRO needs a gun, too.

After explaining the above threat to the judge, I asked him if he could put in my RO that any TRO filed by the respondent would still leave me with my gun until a hearing. I offered an answering machine recording of the threat. Judge said no.

Also, I'm a little surprised CA is just doing that now. I am fairly sure that I read that the reason FL statute takes your gun if you're the respondent in a RO proceeding is that Brady requires it. That means either I am wrong or it was already federally required.

That was 3 years ago, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top